Dropped Third Strike Rule
David Humphrey
During my years of explaining baseball to others, I think I've done
a pretty good job of explaining the reasoning behind rules which
appear to be somewhat arbitrary at first glance but make a tremendous
amount of sense upon further examination. For example, balks and
the infield fly rule can cause newcomers to ask "why?" when the rule
is first mentioned. Both of those rules are, IMHO, very easy to
explain as they clearly prevent one team from deceitfully taking
advantage of the other.
This, however, does not seem to be the case with the dropped third
strike rule. Why do we let the batter/runner make a dash for first
if the catcher doesn't cleanly receive the pitch? Would there be
some perverse change in defensive strategy if we did not have the
dropped third strike rule? It's not as if the catcher could take
up some "infield rover" position as an additional infielder; the
catcher, after all, must be in the catcher's box when the pitcher
delivers the pitch. Would some defensive advantage be gained if
the catcher consistently let two-strike pitches go past him?
I will give a "Free-Series-Sweep-of-the-Cubs" Coupon to the first
post presenting a good explanation for the need of the dropped
third strike rule. If you are a fan of an AL team, we'll try to
work out a one-sided trade with the Cubs to get you a future star
in exchange for a washed-up minor-league prospect.
DavidH
John Shott
Gee, the dropped third strike rule is an interesting question. Let me take
a stab at it ...
I think that the reasoning for this rule is that, even though pitchers get
credited with strike outs, from a scoring persective it is the catcher who
is credited with a putout. In this case, it seems that the case of the
catcher dropping the third strike is somewhat analagous to the first baseman
dropping a throw to first ... he is not credited with a putout and the
runner may choose to try to advance to the next legal base which, in the
case of the dropped third strike, is first base. Of course, at other bases,
a dropped ball means the runner is safe and he doesn't HAVE to try to
advance ... but the ball is still in play. My guess here is that home plate
isn't a LEGAL place for a runner to be once a ball is in play so his only
option is to try to get to first.
I may be way off base (so to speak) but that's my guess as to the reasoning
behind the dropped third strike rule.
John
unknown
>(David Humphrey) writes:
>|> A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
>|>
Here's my thoughts:
It's not true that 3 strikes = your out. The game was set up such that
you have three strikes to put the ball in play. If you don't put the ball
in play on your 3rd strike, the ball becomes live, as if you had hit it.
If the ball is caught before hitting the ground, you are out. However, if
the ball hits the ground, you need to be forced out at first, just like
any other ground ball. This is the way I like to think of it.
Now, this doesn't quite explain foul balls very well. As to why
you can foul off indefinately, I don't know. But it seems to work for
the other stuff...
paul
Jon Hamkins
>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
For any out, the defense must be in control of the ball. Drop a fly
ball, the batter is not out; drop the ball on a play at first, the
batter-runner is not out; drop the ball on a tag, the runner is not
out. And so on. It is no different on a dropped third strike.
Catching the third strike is a natural thing to require. And I believe
this rule is quite old-- much older than some other well-ingrained
rules. But I don't have the handy reference with me.
The exceptions to the rule are a little annoying, though. As I'm sure
you know, with first occupied and less than two outs, it doesn't matter
if you drop the ball. With this rule, the umpires don't want to have
to mess around with having the catcher "accidentally" drop the ball and
forcing out a speedier runner from first going to second. (With two
outs, this situation doesn't come up, because the strikeout would end
the inning, if caught.) My feeling is that this exception ought to be
done away with. Just require them to catch a third strike in *all*
cases, plain and simple.
>During my years of explaining baseball to others, I think I've done
>a pretty good job of explaining the reasoning behind rules which
>appear to be somewhat arbitrary at first glance but make a tremendous
>amount of sense upon further examination. For example, balks and
>the infield fly rule can cause newcomers to ask "why?" when the rule
>is first mentioned. Both of those rules are, IMHO, very easy to
>explain as they clearly prevent one team from deceitfully taking
>advantage of the other.
Balks, yes, I can see a need for the rule. But infield fly, no. I
think the offense *ought* to be punished by a possible double play when
the batter weakly pops up such that an infielder can catch it with
ordinary effort. The offense certainly deserves 2 outs more on an
infield fly than on a hard one-bouncer line drive right to the short
stop.
----Jon Hamkins (ham...@uiuc.edu)
University of Illinois
David Grabiner
> It's not true that 3 strikes = your out. The game was set up such that
> you have three strikes to put the ball in play. If you don't put the ball
> in play on your 3rd strike, the ball becomes live, as if you had hit it.
> If the ball is caught before hitting the ground, you are out. However, if
> the ball hits the ground, you need to be forced out at first, just like
> any other ground ball. This is the way I like to think of it.
> Now, this doesn't quite explain foul balls very well. As to why
> you can foul off indefinately, I don't know. But it seems to work for
> the other stuff...
Foul balls were considered non-chances; it wasn't until 1901 that a foul
ball was a strike. Only a miss, or a taken pitch in the strike zone,
used up one of your three (or four, in some seasons) chances to hit the
ball.
The foul-strike rule was adopted partly in reaction to Roy Thomas, who
could hit foul balls almost at will until the pitcher finally missed
home plate four times.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
ken emery
>>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
>For any out, the defense must be in control of the ball. Drop a fly
>ball, the batter is not out; drop the ball on a play at first, the
>batter-runner is not out; drop the ball on a tag, the runner is not
>out. And so on. It is no different on a dropped third strike.
>Catching the third strike is a natural thing to require. And I believe
>this rule is quite old-- much older than some other well-ingrained
>rules. But I don't have the handy reference with me.
>The exceptions to the rule are a little annoying, though. As I'm sure
>you know, with first occupied and less than two outs, it doesn't matter
>if you drop the ball. With this rule, the umpires don't want to have
>to mess around with having the catcher "accidentally" drop the ball and
>forcing out a speedier runner from first going to second. (With two
>outs, this situation doesn't come up, because the strikeout would end
>the inning, if caught.) My feeling is that this exception ought to be
>done away with. Just require them to catch a third strike in *all*
>cases, plain and simple.
Well the problem with this is that the catcher could let the ball
flop off his mitt and start a double play 1 - 6 - 3 (catcher,
shortstop, first).
bye,
ken emery
James Wallmann
>Now, this doesn't quite explain foul balls very well. As to why
>you can foul off indefinately, I don't know. But it seems to work for
>the other stuff...
The reason why is that foul balls were not counted as strikes when the
game was first invented. The first rules stated that foul balls were not
strikes. The rule change to make fouls count as strikes except for the
third strike was made about a century ago (i can't remember the exact date.)
This rule change was hotly debated at the time.
For reference on this change (i got it from Benton Stark's "The Year They
Called Off the World Series) look up an baseball history book.
Wally
Andrew Selder
dghu...@eos.ncsu.edu (David Humphrey) writes:
> A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
This rule is a hold over from the days when catchers didn't wear any
equipment. They then had the choice of getting close to the plate and
risk get smacked but catching the ball, or standing way back and
letting the ball bounce. In addition standing way back help prevent
wild pitches and passed balls. The rule was insituted so that team
wouldn't play so conservatively.
By the time catchers started wearing equipment, the dropped third
strike rule was part of the game and has remained so.
Andrew Selder
97...@williams.edu
unknown
>In article <hamkins....@morse.csl.uiuc.edu>,
>Jon Hamkins <ham...@morse.csl.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>dghu...@eos.ncsu.edu (David Humphrey) writes:
>
>>>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
>
>
>>you know, with first occupied and less than two outs, it doesn't matter
>>if you drop the ball. With this rule, the umpires don't want to have
>>to mess around with having the catcher "accidentally" drop the ball and
>>forcing out a speedier runner from first going to second. (With two
>>outs, this situation doesn't come up, because the strikeout would end
>>the inning, if caught.) My feeling is that this exception ought to be
>>done away with. Just require them to catch a third strike in *all*
>>cases, plain and simple.
>
>Well the problem with this is that the catcher could let the ball
>flop off his mitt and start a double play 1 - 6 - 3 (catcher,
>shortstop, first).
>
>bye,
>ken emery
>
Or better yet, with bases loaded the easy 2 - 3 dp. God, what a time
for situational hitting, don't you think?
paul
James C. Armstrong Jr.
> My guess here is that home plate
>isn't a LEGAL place for a runner to be once a ball is in play so his only
>option is to try to get to first.
Even if it were legal, the next batters would be out for having two men
at the same base.
EXT 3412
In article <hamkins....@morse.csl.uiuc.edu>, Jon Hamkins
<ham...@morse.csl.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> My feeling is that this exception ought to be done away with. Just
>> require them to catch a third strike in *all* cases, plain and simple.
>
To which <2vieko$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>, k...@remarque.berkeley.edu (ken emery)
replied:
> Well the problem with this is that the catcher could let the ball flop off
> his mitt and start a double play 1 - 6 - 3 (catcher, shortstop, first).
>
^^^^^^^^^
BTW, should be 2 - 6 - 3. Even worse would be with bases loaded and
less than two outs. An intentional drop could easily produce an unassisted
double play. The catcher picking up the ball, tagging home for the force,
then tagging the batter. With no out a tripple play could be likely.
If the runner on second broke toward third the catcher would have plenty of
time to gun him down after the unassisted double play.
My problem is with the infield fly rule. Why should the batter automatically
be out during an infield fly. I would think a better solution would be
to call a dead ball, with runners advancing one base and the batter getting
first. At least this would penalize the defensive team for their lapse.
What do ya think?
DAN
---
Laurence Chiu
catcher on strike 3 you are not out? Or have I misread some of the calls
of the umpires?
Laurence Chiu
(someone who is not an American and trying to learn the game by watching TV)
Jeff Drummond
>
> During my years of explaining baseball to others, I think I've done
> a pretty good job of explaining the reasoning behind rules which
> appear to be somewhat arbitrary at first glance but make a tremendous
> amount of sense upon further examination. For example, balks and
> the infield fly rule can cause newcomers to ask "why?" when the rule
> is first mentioned. Both of those rules are, IMHO, very easy to
> explain as they clearly prevent one team from deceitfully taking
> advantage of the other.
Actually, I think both the balk and infield fly rules should be abolished.
The infield fly rule rewards batters who hit weak pop-ups (by limiting
them to a single out) while batters who hit sharp ground balls are
penalized (by allowing two or even three base runners to be retired).
The balk rule is--quite simply--a travesty. The rules state that the
intent of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately
deceiving the runner. Taken literally, this would mean that any and
every successful pick-off is a balk; since the runner was obviously
deceived! But of course, you can't take it literally; so we're left
with a huge gray area and any umpire is free to call a balk any time
there's a runner on base; for any reason, or no reason.
> This, however, does not seem to be the case with the dropped third
> strike rule. Why do we let the batter/runner make a dash for first
> if the catcher doesn't cleanly receive the pitch? Would there be
> some perverse change in defensive strategy if we did not have the
> dropped third strike rule? It's not as if the catcher could take
> up some "infield rover" position as an additional infielder; the
> catcher, after all, must be in the catcher's box when the pitcher
> delivers the pitch. Would some defensive advantage be gained if
> the catcher consistently let two-strike pitches go past him?
The history of baseball is that the defense has to retire the batter.
Balls and strikes (and strikeouts) came later. Originally, the
batter couldn't be retired until after he put the ball in play; and
he got as many pitches as necessary to do that (at one point, he
could even call what kind of pitch he wanted--high or low). When
the strikeout was added, the defense still had to retire the batter;
namely, by catching the last strike.
> I will give a "Free-Series-Sweep-of-the-Cubs" Coupon to the first
> post presenting a good explanation for the need of the dropped
> third strike rule. If you are a fan of an AL team, we'll try to
> work out a one-sided trade with the Cubs to get you a future star
> in exchange for a washed-up minor-league prospect.
That would be a switch. How about we give you Matt Walbeck back for
Willie Banks? :-|
> DavidH
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three strikes and you're out."
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 42.
Rob Strom
Your theory also doesn't explain why runners can advance on a caught
strike 3 without tagging up.
Jon Hamkins' theory (the defense must control the ball to
get an out) doesn't explain foul bunts, runners hit by fair
balls, interference, overtaking on the basepaths, etc.
Some time ago there was a thread on superfluous rules and
I posted my recommendation that the dropped third strike
and the appeal play rule should be discarded.
(My replacements: (1) three strikes and you're out, and
(2) miss a base or fail to tag up and you're out when you
touch the following base.)
--
Rob Strom, st...@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Jackie F. Russell
: shortstop, first).
: bye,
: ken emery
Sure except for the fact that if a runner is on first, the batter is out
regardless of whether or not the catcher drops the ball.
Russ
Jackie F. Russell
: BTW, should be 2 - 6 - 3. Even worse would be with bases loaded and
: less than two outs. An intentional drop could easily produce an unassisted
: double play. The catcher picking up the ball, tagging home for the force,
: then tagging the batter. With no out a tripple play could be likely.
: If the runner on second broke toward third the catcher would have plenty of
: time to gun him down after the unassisted double play.
I think some of you guys need to go read your MLB rulebooks. If a runner
is on first, it matters not whether the catcher keeps the ball or not, the
batter is out. Obviously the runner can advance on a passed bvall/wild pitch on the third strike, but the batter himself is out in that situation.
: My problem is with the infield fly rule. Why should the batter automatically
: be out during an infield fly. I would think a better solution would be
: to call a dead ball, with runners advancing one base and the batter getting
: first. At least this would penalize the defensive team for their lapse.
: What do ya think?
What in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what the damn infield
fly rule is? What the hell does a defensive lapse have to do with the infield
fly rule?
Russ (Sheesh, get a clue before posting)
: DAN
: ---
unknown
>EXT 3412 (lu...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com) wrote:
>
>
>: BTW, should be 2 - 6 - 3. Even worse would be with bases loaded and
>: less than two outs. An intentional drop could easily produce an unassisted
>: double play. The catcher picking up the ball, tagging home for the force,
>: then tagging the batter. With no out a tripple play could be likely.
>: If the runner on second broke toward third the catcher would have plenty of
>: time to gun him down after the unassisted double play.
>
>I think some of you guys need to go read your MLB rulebooks. If a runner
>is on first, it matters not whether the catcher keeps the ball or not, the
>batter is out. Obviously the runner can advance on a passed bvall/wild pitch on the third strike, but the batter himself is out in that situation.
>
>
>
Um, Russ, they are discussing _why_ the rule is there. "Get a clue"
may be harsh, but I think think "Read the posts to which you are
responding" works.
paul
Peter Hearty u
: My problem is with the infield fly rule. Why should the batter automatically
: be out during an infield fly. I would think a better solution would be
: to call a dead ball, with runners advancing one base and the batter getting
: first. At least this would penalize the defensive team for their lapse.
: What do ya think?
I think that this is ridiculous. The infield fly rule is not there to
help the defense, and give them a free out, it is there to protect the
offense. Obviously a smart fielder would drop the fly and turn the easy
double play. But you say that if the defense drops it, kill the play and
advance the runners a base, and put the batter on. Thought the penalizes
the defence it also penalizes the offence. If the fielder drops it and
bounces quite a distance from him, then a runner on second wouldn't have a
problem to score, but your solution would have him on third.
Peter Hearty
hear...@mach1.wlu.ca
Chris Allen
or not.
Also someone mentioned about foultips, A dropped foul tip with two strikes is a foul ball,
one that is caught is a strike out.
EXT 3412
> EXT 3412 (lu...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com) wrote:
>
> : BTW, should be 2 - 6 - 3. Even worse would be with bases loaded and
> : less than two outs. An intentional drop could easily produce an unassisted
> : double play. The catcher picking up the ball, tagging home for the force,
> : then tagging the batter. With no out a tripple play could be likely.
> : If the runner on second broke toward third the catcher would have plenty of
> : time to gun him down after the unassisted double play.
>
> I think some of you guys need to go read your MLB rulebooks. If a runner
> is on first, it matters not whether the catcher keeps the ball or not, the
> batter is out. Obviously the runner can advance on a passed bvall/wild pitch
> on the third strike, but the batter himself is out in that situation.
>
could arise if the "runner on first with less than two outs" exception was
not in the MLB rulebook. Therefore, no matter how many times I would read
the book it would be of no help, except to reinforce my understanding of
why the writers of MLB rules would put this exception into the rules in
the first place.
> : EXT 3412 (lu...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com) wrote:
> : My problem is with the infield fly rule. Why should the batter
> : automatically be out during an infield fly. I would think a better
> : solution would be to call a dead ball, with runners advancing one base
> : and the batter getting first. At least this would penalize the defensive
> : team for their lapse. What do ya think?
>
> What in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what the damn infield
> fly rule is? What the hell does a defensive lapse have to do with the infield
> fly rule?
>
> Russ (Sheesh, get a clue before posting)
>
Russ, Let me go a little slower for you. Lets take a typical situation where
the infield fly rule would be called. Basses loaded, no one out. Batter hits
a pop up to the short stop. Umpire rules that with "reasonable effort" the
shortstop should catch the ball. Umpire calls "Infield fly, batter out if
fair." Now lets say the fielder has a "defensive lapse" and the ball falls
out of his glove. According to the MLB rule book the batter is out even
though the infielder dropped the ball. The runners now have the opportunity
to advance at their own risk. Assumming that the ball does no roll too far
from the infielder, the runners would hold their bases. End result, basses
loaded, one out.
In review, what we have here is an infield fly rule situation concurrent (that
means at the same time) with a lapse by a defensive player.
Now, here comes the hard part, What I did next was to propose a modification
to the existing MLB rule in reguards to the infield fly rule. Same situation
as before, basses loaded no one out. Batter hits a pop up to the short stop.
Umpire rules that with "reasonable effort" the shortstop should catch the ball.
Umpire calls "Infield fly." Now lets say the fielder has a "defensive lapse"
and the ball falls out of his glove. Here is where the modification to the
rule would come in. Umpire would call dead ball, all runners advance 1 base
from the time of the pitch, batter gets first. End result, basses loaded,
no one out, one run in.
DAN (now where did that clue go again) Lucko
---
John C. Davenport
>>>>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
Well, this thread has really been spinning out of control (again), as
people are now coming in telling people they don't know the rules,
when the people do know the rules, but are trying to figure out why
its there and what would happen if it weren't.
The reason for the rule is that three strikes does not equal an out;
it equals a ball in play, and has from the beginning. Rule V, section
7 of the 1876 rules reads:
"Should the batsman fail to strike at a good ball, or should he strike
and fail to hit the ball, the umpire shall call "one strike", and "two
strikes", should he again fail. When two strikes have been called,
should the batsman not strike at the next good ball the umpire shall
warnm him by calling "good ball". But should he strike at and fail to
hit the ball, or should he fail to strike at or to hit the next good
ball, "three strikes" must be called, and the batsman must run to
first as in the case of hitting a fair ball."
You can see that a third strike is treated exactly like a fair ball.
If the defense catches it on the fly, its an out. If not, you have to
try for the force, just like a dropped line drive. (At the time, a
third strike caught on one bounce was also considered an out. Changed
in 1880, I think, or perhaps 1883; the chronology isn't clear.)
Now suppose you're a catcher under these rules, the bases are loaded
with nobody out, and the batter just struck out. The smart play is to
intentionally drop the ball, so that is a force play. You step on home
for the easy force, you throw to second, he throws to first, and
you've got a very cheesy triple play. Thats why, in 1883, they changed
to the current "batter is out if there's a man on first and less than
two outs" rule: it is exactly the same reason that the infield fly rule
was adopted in 1895, declaring the batter out to remove the force. The
defense should not be able to benefit by deliberately doing something
wrong, like dropping a fly ball or a strike they can easily catch. It
violates the spirit of the game; it is unsportsmanlike; it is properly
regarded by the other team as a no-good, rotten dirty trick, even if
it were technically within the rules.
[Note that a batter actually got a fourth strike, if the third strike
were called, but not if its swinging. Foul balls are not mentioned,
because they didn't become strikes until later; foul bunts were
strikes in 1894, caught foul tips in 1895, other fouls in 1901 (NL)
and 1903 (AL)]
The 1876 rules and the chronology of changes are from Total Baseball
I; I believe TB III starts with the 1845 rules (which are really fun
to see.)
--
Clay D.
jc...@virginia.edu
"I took baseball for granted. I'll never do that again." -Chipper Jones
James Wallmann
Finally a voice of reason..let's end it here, it's obvious this is why,
and if you don't believe..read your history books
Wally
Rob Strom
|>
|> >>>>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
|>
|> Well, this thread has really been spinning out of control (again), as
|> people are now coming in telling people they don't know the rules,
|> when the people do know the rules, but are trying to figure out why
|> its there and what would happen if it weren't.
|>
|> The reason for the rule is that three strikes does not equal an out;
|> it equals a ball in play, and has from the beginning. Rule V, section
|> 7 of the 1876 rules reads:
|>
|> "Should the batsman fail to strike at a good ball, or should he strike
|> and fail to hit the ball, the umpire shall call "one strike", and "two
|> strikes", should he again fail. When two strikes have been called,
|> should the batsman not strike at the next good ball the umpire shall
|> warnm him by calling "good ball". But should he strike at and fail to
|> hit the ball, or should he fail to strike at or to hit the next good
|> ball, "three strikes" must be called, and the batsman must run to
|> first as in the case of hitting a fair ball."
|>
|> You can see that a third strike is treated exactly like a fair ball.
|> If the defense catches it on the fly, its an out. If not, you have to
|> try for the force, just like a dropped line drive. (At the time, a
|> third strike caught on one bounce was also considered an out. Changed
|> in 1880, I think, or perhaps 1883; the chronology isn't clear.)
|>
on a caught strike three without tagging up? (If strike
three is a ball in play, then a caught strike three should
force the runner to return to the original base before advancing.)
Chris Allen
With a full count on the batter the manager comes to the mound, and when he leaves it appears they
will intentionally walk the batter, then just before he throws the pitch the catcher jumps
down and the pitcher throws strike three. Nopw if the catcher didn't have to worry about
catching that ball he wouldn't even have to jump down, he could just stand on the side and let it hit
the ump or something. By forcing him to catch it it makes the ruse much more difficult to pull off,
and very rarely done.
It also means that pitchers must be more aware of what they throw, especially those with
split finger fastballs and Knuckle balls. The catcher must make that effort to keep the ball in front
of him when it breaks off the plate or the dirt in front.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher J. Allen e3u...@fnma.com
Federal National Mortgage Association
4000 Wisconsin Ave
Washington, DC 20016
(202) 752-7156
All statements and opinions represent purely my own and are in no way a reflection or statement of the Federal National Mortgage Association. I am acting as an Individual.
_____________________________________________________________________________
unknown
>
>>>>>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
>
>it equals a ball in play,
Yes, chalk one up for paul! That was my explanation, and I didn't
even use the 1876 rule book. 8^)
paul
Ryan Robbins
piddling lines at the end?
Ryan Robbins
University of Maine
RROB...@Maine.Maine.Edu <--- checked daily
ryan_r...@voyager.umeres.maine.edu <--- checked 3x/week
John C. Davenport
Rob Strom <st...@Watson.Ibm.Com> wrote:
>In article <CssLv...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jc...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU (John C. Davenport) writes:
>|>
>|> >>>>A question: why do we have the dropped third strike rule?
>|> The reason for the rule is that three strikes does not equal an out;
>|> it equals a ball in play, and has from the beginning. Rule V, section
>|> 7 of the 1876 rules reads:
>|>
>|> "Should the batsman fail to strike at a good ball, or should he strike
>|> and fail to hit the ball, the umpire shall call "one strike", and "two
>|> strikes", should he again fail. When two strikes have been called,
>|> should the batsman not strike at the next good ball the umpire shall
>|> warnm him by calling "good ball". But should he strike at and fail to
>|> hit the ball, or should he fail to strike at or to hit the next good
>|> ball, "three strikes" must be called, and the batsman must run to
>|> first as in the case of hitting a fair ball."
>|>
>|> You can see that a third strike is treated exactly like a fair ball.
>|> If the defense catches it on the fly, its an out. If not, you have to
>|> try for the force, just like a dropped line drive. (At the time, a
>|> third strike caught on one bounce was also considered an out. Changed
>|> in 1880, I think, or perhaps 1883; the chronology isn't clear.)
>|>
>When did they change the rules to allow runners to advance
>on a caught strike three without tagging up? (If strike
>three is a ball in play, then a caught strike three should
>force the runner to return to the original base before advancing.)
>
Oooffff, you got me. My statement is wrong: a third strike is not
exactly like a batted ball. A misinterpretation on my part, which I'll
try to correct.
I think the answer is to be found if by digging a little deeper into
the mists of time, back to the game's genesis in 1845. (And Alex
Cartwright said, "Let there be baseball")
Rule 11 of the original Knickerbocker rules reads: "Three balls being
struck at and missed and the last one caught, is a hand out; if not
caught is considered fair, and the striker bound to run."
The dropped third strike rule is thus as old as three outs and 90 foot
bases, (which are in the 1845 rules) and older than such later
inventions as nine innings (1857) and the force out (1854).
(Interestingly, Rule #1 was basically, "Players shall show up for
games on time.")
Note that the rule does not say a third strike is like a batted ball.
Only a dropped third strike is treated like a fairly hit ball (and so
the need for something like the infield fly rule remains, to prevent
an intentionally dropped ball leading to easy outs.) A caught third
strike is treated like an out of its own kind; it is distinct from a
batted ball that is caught.
I think that is important, although it is unclear where, how, and by
what rules stolen bases were governed. At the time, a caught fly ball
was considered dead; the batter was out, and runners had to return to
their bases. The rules don't say that a runner can run during a pitch,
but they don't say he can't, either. The only times it says he's not
allowed to run is if a ball is batted foul or is caught on the fly,
and in either case he has to return to his base. If a runner could
advance during a pitch, and I think he could, than the distinction
between a caught third strike and a caught fly ball is important,
because he is allowed to run on the one but not on the other.
Subsequent rules that allowed advancing after a fly ball if you tagged
up (and, a year later, allowed fielders to double off runners who
didn't tag; 1859, 1860) had no effect on caught third strikes, because
they weren't considered fly balls. So no rule had to be changed to
allow basestealers to run on a caught third strike; it was my
misstatement of the rule which caused the apparent problem. My
apologies, and I hope this makes proper amends.
David Hulac
: >In article <2vhnbh$p...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, dghu...@eos.ncsu.edu
: Here's my thoughts:
: paul
Paul, I really like this answer except for one problem. When a runner
steals second base, he is doubled off first if the catcher gets a third
strike. In other words, when a batter steals a base with two strikes, he
starts from some point off the base (he leads off). When the third
strike comes, the catcher has to throw him out at second, not double him
off first.
Otherwise, that is a very good way of looking at the situation.
--
David Hulac-The VICE-president: "Looks like I picked the wrong week to
Lafayette College -Kirby House: stop sniffing glue."
hul...@lafcol.lafayette.edu : "Hey, it's me!"
Easton, PA 18042 : "Give me Ham on five, hold the mayo."